Mysteries of Science

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

There doesn't need to be a reason for other creatures, but a good reason for humans, on a genetic level, is the increased survival of the children from the "not gay" sisters of the gay male.

On average, the sisters of the gay can have more children because there's an extra person there to rear the children. (lol)

You can google reasons (genetic) for homosexuality, you know. Many of those are "official" empirical/peer reviewed studies.

^

Ridiculous, this assumes that the "gay" won't leave the nest, which by anecdotal evidence, the opposite is true; the "gay" is more likely to leave the nest at an even earlier stage of life.

2 points ofr the Knocked Up reference, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There doesn't need to be a reason for other creatures, but a good reason for humans, on a genetic level, is the increased survival of the children from the "not gay" sisters of the gay male.

On average, the sisters of the gay can have more children because there's an extra person there to rear the children.

You can google reasons (genetic) for homosexuality, you know. Many of those are "official" empirical/peer reviewed studies.

besides i heard some already from being a mental brain chemistry thing to not being bombarded by not enough testosterone when the fetus sex is about to be triggered and developed inside the womb causing the fetus to retain more feminine traits from not being bombarded by enough testosterone... also being the nature vs nurtur thing as well (lol)
🙄

Originally posted by Mindship
That's what I thought. Understandably, scientists (being human) like more "hands on." But, yeah, if done properly, it should be just as valid.

valid is a tough word, but I get the meaning 🙂

I'd almost say that the issue here is people putting too much faith in lab results, as if they are more "conclusive" than some types of observational results.

That being said, in my field, if there were two competing theories, one supported only by observation and the other only by experimental results, history of psych says the observational one is likely false

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Secondly a claim based on "there's no evidence that this isn't true" won't get very far in the sciences.

yes and no, in a very strict sense, the only way to provide support for a theory is to provide evidence against competing theories, so in that sense, evidence that something isn't true, and lacking such evidence is support of a theory.

That being said, a theory which has no proof against it, yet does nothing to propose further experimentation or interpretation (like the hologram example) is worthless in terms of actual theoretical content.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i rather hear layman's ideas then some cold scientific theory..

Wah?

Don't make fragment sentences.

I assume you're saying, "I hear Layman's ideas, from you, rather than some cold scientific theory."

If that's the case, stop being lazy, and verify if what I said was correct. You're the one that is curious, not me. I already read these studies.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
besides i heard some already from being a mental brain chemistry thing to not being bombarded by not enough testosterone when the fetus sex is about to be triggered and developed inside the womb causing the fetus to retain more feminine traits from not being bombarded by enough testosterone... also being the nature vs nurtur thing as well (lol)
🙄

Yeah yeah yeah. That's sort of it, and it's true.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Ridiculous, this assumes that the "gay" won't leave the nest, which by anecdotal evidence, the opposite is true; the "gay" is more likely to leave the nest at an even earlier stage of life.

2 points ofr the Knocked Up reference, though.

Whaaa?

No.

That movie got it from somewhere else...which happens to be what I'm talking about. 😐

Originally posted by inimalist
valid is a tough word, but I get the meaning 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
I assume you're saying, "I hear Layman's ideas, from you, rather than some cold scientific theory."

Seems more like "I'd rather heat laymen's ideas than some scientific theory". Which admittedly is a very odd thing to say but makes use of more of his words.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

The RDForums would have a field day with this. I once saw a legitimate poster trigger a scorched earth policy after "grossly overemphasizing the adaptationist paradigm" or some such. So I have posted only twice.

Anywhoo, GODDIDIT

aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

They would be a mutant, yesn but clearly still human in any meaningful sense.

what so negative about being called a mutant? i mean it is a term used everyday in marvel comics and i never saw kitty freak out over it.... its not like your calling them a mutie.
😇
the conotation would be he is superpowered and shun by a jealous society.

The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

Mutants aren't something new, they are something broken.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

Mutants aren't something new, they are something broken.

It all depends on what you call a mutant. Not all mutations lead to disaster. Some lead to mundane things like red hair.

Also, your statement that "genetic data has never been added on" makes no sense, and is not true. Viruses change (add on) genetic data all the time. That is how we get new viruses every year.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

There is a good change that the missing chromosome could not be passed on to a new generation because there would have to be a mate that also had the same missing chromosome.

For something new to begin, otherwise?? Die out. Makes one want to cry, huh. crybaby

LOL

Originally posted by One Free Man
The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

That doesn't make anything approaching sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a good change that the missing chromosome could not be passed on to a new generation because there would have to be a mate that also had the same missing chromosome.

it is usually hard to find a mate whether it is the run of the mill human or a mutated variant with altered chromosomes.

it what happens to many variant animals they usually die on their own without passing the genes or are swallowed back into their species and their genetic anomaly is then buried.

i bn thinking if a human has an added chromosome shouldnt it be easier to create a human/Ape hybrid? just wondering... 😕

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a good change that the missing chromosome could not be passed on to a new generation because there would have to be a mate that also had the same missing chromosome.

Indeed.

I don't know of one example (outside of a lab) where the genetic data equivalent to that of a chromosome, is missing or added to an existing species, and it occurred enough in a single generation to sustain a steady population with the "mutation."

The vast majority of significant mutations are negative/bad.

I don't know of any disorder, among humans, that creates an entire, brand new, chromosome (NOT duplication or amalgamation). That's waaaaay too much effin' genetic data. We are talking millions of years.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

technically they may be. however. there is no ultimate and perfect/ideal definition of a species, its all vagueries of language and its usually creationists who try to say that speciation=macroevolution=chromosomal mutation. which is false.